Yes, I agree that the focus should be on how to improve the situation. The purpose of this blog entry was in part to add some urgency to that goal, since the collateral damage is real and ongoing. Sadly, some of the possible solutions that one could think of would have costs as well, since the most logical rule amendment to curb this type of activity would, for example, be to not allow someone to vote for (say) six months after joining or upgrading.

But if the rules are tightened up in this way to limit game playing (by anyone - others may be tempted in the future to act the same way), then it makes it harder for those who have a genuine interest in a standard, but learn about it at a late date, to join and have their say. And that would be a shame. From that perspective, "social pressure," made possible by more transparency, has some value, since it may inhibit behavior without the necessity of changing rules that cause their own collateral damage.